Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1995/06/07 (2) MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Wednesday, Jane 7, 1995 Council Conference Room 6:09 p.m. Administration Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Coancilmembers Alevy, Moot, Padilia, Rindone, and Mayor Horton ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney; and Vieki C. Soderquist, Deputy City Clerk BUSINESS 2. ORDINANCE 2632 AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM (Urgency and first reading) (Administration) Continued from the June 6, 1995 meeting. Mr. Boogaard stated it was the second step of the redandancy to have the ordinance introduced on an urgency basis and adopted in twenty days which required four votes. If the ordinance did not get four votes, the resolution passed by Council on Tuesday would be sufficient to start the twenty day notice period but the City would not be able to implement the ordinance in twenty days on an urgency basis and, therefore, effect it before the 6/30/95 required deadline. Coancilmember Rindone stated he had voted no on the resolution and noted there were several reasons for voting no. The following five concerns had not been fully addressed: 1) fiscal impacts and long term costs to the City; 2) the inclusion of all employee groups under PERS and the cost impacts; 3) the work furlough program which he felt would result in the loss of services to the public or reduction in work force; 4) a cut in salaries for hourly employees to help mitigate the budget impact while raising benefits to other employees, including management; and 5) the limited fiscal resources of the City, it was important to be as prudent as possible. He felt Coancil was making every effort to avoid layoffs and at the present time that appeared to be the case. The future impacts upon the City, particularly the shifting of $2 million of debt service from the Radevelopment Agency into the General Fand was creating a large number of funding increases for services. If those fees were not raised by Council the potential threat for layoffs in the future would be heightened. Until the City had significant increases in the revenue flows, either through property sales tax or significant changes in redevehipment projects, then Coancil needed to be prudent. Therefore, he could not suppert the proposal before Council. Mr. Goss stated the cost abatement and work furlough, the week between Christmas and New Year, was a dead week. If it was a position that required staffing then the time would be spread out through the year. The cutting of the salaries of the lower paid employees, the practice of the Coancils in the past had been to treat everyone the same, he was ancertain as to whether that had been discussed at the bargaining table. Candy Emerson, Director of Personnel, responded that it had not been discussed. Mr. Goss felt that the bargaining unit must have felt comfortable with it. In terms of limited fiscal resources to the City, he felt the budget attested to that. There had been $2.3 million in proposed cuts in the original budget and $1.7 million in revenue enhancements. In terms of the immediate future it would benefit the City over the next four years regarding the fiscal impact in terms of avoiding layoffs and other fiscal impacts because of the elements of the work furlough. There was a valid concern regarding what would happen beyond the four years but anything that might be done over the next 1-4 years that would involve any type of minor increase would have the same or greater impact. It was true that under the regulations of PERS it applied to everyone that was not a sworn police officer or fire fighter, or part-time employee. As he had indicated, he felt the same types of things would be done · I Minutes June 7, 1995 Page 2 with those groups. He had talked to the mid-management committee and they were aware there would need to be an off-set. Staff would not return to Council unless the proposal was ratified by the bargaining units. He felt Councilmember Rindone's concerns were valid and that it was a difficult issue for the Council. Mr. Boogaard stated if the ordinance was passed with four votes Council would have to pass it again after twenty days with four votes. The actoarial tables expired on 7/1/95 so action would have to be taken on or between 6/27/95 and 6/30/95. Councilmember Alevy questioned if the vote would be binding. Mr. Boogaard replied that it was reversible, Council could change their minds. Councilmember Padilia stated he did not see the need to discuss further elements of the issue in Closed Session as it had been discussed at length. He felt Council bed anived at a general direction and the urgency ordinance was now before Council which was key to the success of the ground that Council had traveled. He recognized Councilmember Rindone's concerns but he was not uncomfortable with the analysis and work dune by staff regarding the long term costs. He felt it ludicrous to assume that the Council would not be granting any bargaining unit over the next 10-20 years any base salary increase. Only in that case would the City realize a cost equal to or less than wbet was being proposed. The bargaining group appeared willing to work with staff to fmd ways to finance that for the term of the agreement. He felt it was a fairly solid agreement under the circumstances and the bargaining unit was willing to sacrifice quite a bit for a benefit that most of them would not realize for many m~ny years. No agreement would continually involve no cost to the City over a lengthy term. If the term was prolonged the City would price itself out of the labor market and would be unable to compete with other jurisdictions. He was not willing to sacrifice the work that bed already been done. ORDINANCE 2632 PLACED ON FIRST READING AND URGENCY, reading of the text was waived. Mayor Hotton stated she felt comfortable with the issue and that it was reasonable. Councilmember Alevy stated the Council would be moving the process along and showing a commitment. He requested that staff remm with a response to Councilmember Rindone's concerns, i.e. affect on services and lowering employee salaries. An information memorandum would be sufficient. Mr. Goss sta~d staff would respond. He felt the issue of the executive and mid-management groups should be resolved prior to the date for the second reading of the ordinance. Councilmember Moot stated he had serious reservations on the proposal and how.it was being implemented. He did believe that the will of the majority of the Council should be controlling. He felt they bed hashed out the issues thoroughly, he did not always agree, but that they needed to move forward due to the urgency nature. Therefore, he would support it. Councilmember Rindone felt it important that his reasons for a no vote be understood, i.e. that all the issues and implications were not resolved. Council wantad to continue to do the best for the employees and noted they had not been over paid, tbet was not the fundamental issue. The fundamental issue was restricted resources, continued escalating costs, trying to ensure that there was a full work force, continue to look at ways to raise revenues without impacting the quality of life, and to ensure that the resources for future years would be there. VOTE ON ORDINANCE 2632: appenved 4-1 with Rindone opposed. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None Minutes June 7, 1995 Page 3 OTHER BUSINESS 3. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) a. Scheduling of meetings. No report given. 4. MAYOR'S REPORT(S) - None 5. COUNCIL COMMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT AT 6:35 P.M. to the Regular City Council Meeting on Tuesday, June 13, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC/AAE, City Clerk by: Vicki C. Sederql~st, ~ty City Clerk